I don't watch sitcoms. At least not regularly, and certainly not when they are aired on network television or from my Tivo list, since I don't record them. Therefore, this post is for all of you (the three of you) who have asked me to say something about several Sitcoms, most notably The Office, 30 Rock, and Modern Family.
First, The Office: I can't watch this show ... in any format. I have a real problem with second-hand embarrassment that prevents me from watching people, even fictional characters, from shredding their dignity in deliberately awkward situations. In The Office, that's the whole point. Though I love Steve Carrell and his movies (yes, I have to hide my eyes frequently), I can't squeak through an entire episode of The Office because it makes me want to stab myself in the eyes with a fork. There you go - The Office ... covered.
30 Rock: I really do like this show. It is campy (which I find is an exception to my aversion to awkwardness), cute, and unapologetically intelligent. If I ever meet Liz Lemon in real life (bizarre secret single behaviors and all), I see an instant marriage proposal unfolding. I did not (and do not), however, watch this show in broadcast. I stream the episodes from my XBox through Netflix. The episodes are one season behind - think of it like DVD release time - but I am able to watch many episodes at a time, which overcomes one of my great dislikes of sitcoms in general: they are only 22 minutes long! How can you engross yourself in the characters in only 22 minutes every few weeks? You sitcom afficionadoes out there might be able to manage it, but I have a plodding, over-considerate brain that takes more time to process a story. So, while I love 30 Rock, I won't be discussing last night's episodes at the water cooler (do they still have water coolers in offices these days?).
Modern Family: If I know you and respect your opinion, you have invariably told me to watch this show. I haven't, of course, because I don't watch sitcoms over broadcast. If Modern Family makes it to the streaming content library over Netflix, I promise I will watch it and render my opinions. Realize, of course, that means I will be a season behind. Patience is a virtue!
A word on the XBox: The streaming content from Netflix that I mention above can be had through your Tivo, over the web on your computer (or on web-enabled TVs), or from your XBox or PS3. I have tried streaming the content online, and while it seems to work fine - I don't prefer to sit in front of my 21" computer screen when I have a giant (let's not start a TV/penis competition here, by the way) 49" Samsung LCD begging to help heat my living room. I've also tried streaming Netflix to my HD Tivo, and that was an abject failure. The picture was certainly not HD (when it should have been), and the Tivo couldn't keep up with buffering the content. It was constantly stopping and starting. And before you criticise, yes my internet provider and wireless network are perfectly capable of streaming the HD content with plenty of speed to spare. I have therefore found the XBox to be the best mode of streaming content. For you PS3'ers out there, I'm sure it works just as well.
How will this change how you watch TV? Well, the streaming content library continues to grow (it's difficult to get an accurate count of titles, since some are available for a limited time, and more titles are added continuously; the count is certainly over 20,000 however), and the options for watching that content on your TV are expanding like a Biggest Loser contestant the year after the show. While the new fad is stand-alone stream-to-tv devices like the Roku or LinkTheater, multi-tasking devices are my bet for the future of TV. After all, who would invest in a Roku when they can get an XBox and play Halo after watching an episode of Lost?
I also think Microsoft is headed down the right hardware path here. Sony has invested beaucoups bucks in BluRay technology - winning a format war with Toshiba, the pioneer of HD DVDs - betting that BluRay discs will be the format of choice for HD content. I beg to differ. Um, hello? BluRay is wicked expensive and has a major weakness ... it requires a disc. Doesn't anyone remember what happened to VHS? And cassettes? And 8-tracks? Microsoft is betting that when presented with the option to free ourselves from the physical remnant of content-delivery, we'll choose the streaming content every time. If the quality starts to rival BluRay, which it will soon, Sony is going to be sucking hind [edited for propriety] in this battle because they will be left holding the BluRay bag, while their streaming content is still the neglected step-child of the PS3.
A sidenote to networks here: the clamor from viewers to start throwing their favorite shows into the streaming library sooner than the DVD release is going to finally drag you into the 21st century, forcing you to find new ways to produce television entertainment. It won't be long before we will be watching all of our TV over a streaming device like the XBox.
Conclusion: if you like to buy stocks, Microsoft and Netflix will be good long-term investments. And yes ... I will eventually watch Modern Family
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Why "V" Will Make It ... Probably
ABC's reincarnation of V returns tonight from a long (looooooong) season break. I can't even label it a "mid-season break" because they stopped airing episodes after only 4. That's not a mid-anything. While I'm not a huge fan of season breaks in general (I think they're a useless holdover from the old school 22-episode season production schedule, when networks still re-aired the season in its entirety during summer reruns), I hate hate hate the long gaps in some recently produced dramas. ABC seems especially prone to this gaffe. And don't be fooled into thinking it's a deliberately planned stunt. I highly doubt it. My guess is that the network execs try to capitalize on peak TV-times by airing whatever is in the can before new episodes have even been written. Of course, the Network risks losing most of its audience when the new episodes start airing because the momentum is lost. That, and everyone has forgotten what happened in the first episodes - especially risky with genre shows like V that rely on a long-term story arc.
Though we will find out tomorrow whether V manages to hold on to its audience, I predict it will do well, possibly even picking up viewers. Here's what V has going for it:
1. The summary episode. ABC learned from Lost that a good summary episode aired the week before a long hiatus ends can help a show recover some of the disillusioned viewers that forgot the details over the break. Some smart producer reached into the 80's TV vault and dusted off an old trick - the montage episode - and put it to good use. The old montage episodes (remember those? Little House on the Prairie, Buck Rogers, and The Waltons did some great ones) were basically a device used by producers to fill out a 22-episode season with a little filler to save dough. Need a cheap episode? No problem! Cut together some scenes from previous episodes with a few wide shots of the actors reminiscing about old times. Bingo! Episode 12 for a song! Now ABC is using the montage episode to catch us all up, and bag the Tuesday night viewers for one more night ... gratis! Hire a narrator and a drunk editor and you too can capture a 5 share!
2. Legions of 30-something geeks who loved the original series (try watching it now on SyFy reruns, by the way .... blech!) and will basically watch a remake of anything that reminds us of a time when we still had hope of meeting girls.
3. Passable writing. I'm not saying the first 4 episodes made me want to run out and buy the novelization, but it wasn't bad. Considering they crammed the setup to at least 5 different plot lines into those 4 episodes, and adequately introduced all of the main characters without making me reach for the remote, I'm willing to give the story so far a solid B. Not bad for the first few episodes of a genre show. Room to grow, for sure, but it's not a train wreck from the start like some other genre shows I could mention but won't (for instance, I could mention Star Trek: Enterprise, but I won't).
4. Morena Baccarin. I still haven't figured out why some actors who star in one genre show end up starring almost exclusively in other genre shows. It seems like every actor that had a passing connection to the updated Battlestar Galactica (hereinafter referred to as BSG) is showing up in every other genre show that currently exists. Morena Baccarin is no stranger to that trend. She was the smoking-hot "companion" on Joss Whedon's short-lived (tragic! betrayal!) Firefly, and we didn't see much of her until her reappearance on V as the cunning, evil leader Anna. Whatever you prefer, scrappy smart "companion" or nefarious lizard alien - Morena Baccarin is laying the smack down on that role so far.
5. A seemingly endless supply of beautiful people. I think Scott Wolf's character said it best in the first episode: "Are there any ugly visitors?" Clearly, Scott, the answer is no. In fact, even the humans in this show are excessively easy on the eyes. For all of you Haute Cinema gasbags out there, don't whine about how TV stars don't reflect the real world. Duh. That's why we watch TV instead of staring out the window. Pretty people!
6. Aliens. Hopefully someone is finally figuring out that aliens make good TV. You can have an average script, but if it has aliens in it I will watch it. No aliens? Yeah, I have DVDs if I get bored; I don't really need to suffer through another episode of 24. Now ... if 24 had aliens? The show might not have been canceled. That's all I'm saying.
All in all, I'm optimistic about V. It has promise, and as long as ABC manages to keep their grubby paws off the writers, the show will likely heat up for the rest of its first-season run. It certainly has long-term potential. I mean, the original had a major conspiracy followed by metaphysical alien reproduction, followed by Red Dawn inspired occupation and resistance. Who can't squeeze 5 seasons out of THAT?!
ABC - I'm invested. Don't let me down.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Though we will find out tomorrow whether V manages to hold on to its audience, I predict it will do well, possibly even picking up viewers. Here's what V has going for it:
1. The summary episode. ABC learned from Lost that a good summary episode aired the week before a long hiatus ends can help a show recover some of the disillusioned viewers that forgot the details over the break. Some smart producer reached into the 80's TV vault and dusted off an old trick - the montage episode - and put it to good use. The old montage episodes (remember those? Little House on the Prairie, Buck Rogers, and The Waltons did some great ones) were basically a device used by producers to fill out a 22-episode season with a little filler to save dough. Need a cheap episode? No problem! Cut together some scenes from previous episodes with a few wide shots of the actors reminiscing about old times. Bingo! Episode 12 for a song! Now ABC is using the montage episode to catch us all up, and bag the Tuesday night viewers for one more night ... gratis! Hire a narrator and a drunk editor and you too can capture a 5 share!
2. Legions of 30-something geeks who loved the original series (try watching it now on SyFy reruns, by the way .... blech!) and will basically watch a remake of anything that reminds us of a time when we still had hope of meeting girls.
3. Passable writing. I'm not saying the first 4 episodes made me want to run out and buy the novelization, but it wasn't bad. Considering they crammed the setup to at least 5 different plot lines into those 4 episodes, and adequately introduced all of the main characters without making me reach for the remote, I'm willing to give the story so far a solid B. Not bad for the first few episodes of a genre show. Room to grow, for sure, but it's not a train wreck from the start like some other genre shows I could mention but won't (for instance, I could mention Star Trek: Enterprise, but I won't).
4. Morena Baccarin. I still haven't figured out why some actors who star in one genre show end up starring almost exclusively in other genre shows. It seems like every actor that had a passing connection to the updated Battlestar Galactica (hereinafter referred to as BSG) is showing up in every other genre show that currently exists. Morena Baccarin is no stranger to that trend. She was the smoking-hot "companion" on Joss Whedon's short-lived (tragic! betrayal!) Firefly, and we didn't see much of her until her reappearance on V as the cunning, evil leader Anna. Whatever you prefer, scrappy smart "companion" or nefarious lizard alien - Morena Baccarin is laying the smack down on that role so far.
5. A seemingly endless supply of beautiful people. I think Scott Wolf's character said it best in the first episode: "Are there any ugly visitors?" Clearly, Scott, the answer is no. In fact, even the humans in this show are excessively easy on the eyes. For all of you Haute Cinema gasbags out there, don't whine about how TV stars don't reflect the real world. Duh. That's why we watch TV instead of staring out the window. Pretty people!
6. Aliens. Hopefully someone is finally figuring out that aliens make good TV. You can have an average script, but if it has aliens in it I will watch it. No aliens? Yeah, I have DVDs if I get bored; I don't really need to suffer through another episode of 24. Now ... if 24 had aliens? The show might not have been canceled. That's all I'm saying.
All in all, I'm optimistic about V. It has promise, and as long as ABC manages to keep their grubby paws off the writers, the show will likely heat up for the rest of its first-season run. It certainly has long-term potential. I mean, the original had a major conspiracy followed by metaphysical alien reproduction, followed by Red Dawn inspired occupation and resistance. Who can't squeeze 5 seasons out of THAT?!
ABC - I'm invested. Don't let me down.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Why I Should Be a Network Executive
Because I can see the future!! Fox announced today that 24 will not be coming back for a 9th season. Check here for a taste: https://www.hollywood.com/news/The_Clock_Stops_FOX_Cancels_24/6837012
While I assume this announcement has been in the works for several weeks at least, I don't mind pointing everyone to my post from last week, "How the BBC Got it Right Where 24 Continues to Get it Wrong" http://theloadeddiaper.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-bbc-got-it-right-where-24-continues.html as proof that someone at Fox needs to hire me to run things. At the very least, I can "run" things from the mail room to Rupert Murdoch's office.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
While I assume this announcement has been in the works for several weeks at least, I don't mind pointing everyone to my post from last week, "How the BBC Got it Right Where 24 Continues to Get it Wrong" http://theloadeddiaper.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-bbc-got-it-right-where-24-continues.html as proof that someone at Fox needs to hire me to run things. At the very least, I can "run" things from the mail room to Rupert Murdoch's office.
P.S. -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Friday, March 26, 2010
How BBC Got it Right Where "24" Continues to Get it Wrong
First off, a confession: I love BBC programming. In particular, I love BBC dramas. I'm not as gaga over their sitcoms as many Americans (apologies to those of you who fawn over the original The Office, Fawlty Towers, and AbFab), but I believe many of their dramas incorporate something that most American network programs intentionally ignore - namely: complexity and subtlety.
As a specific example, I recently watched the 2006 BBC series The State Within. A 7 episode mini, this series examines a potential terrorist plot within the United States, seen from the perspective of the British Ambassador to the US, admirably played by the British actor Jason Isaacs. The show takes place primarily in Washington, D.C. and involves eminent characters like the US Secretary of Defense, the Governor of Florida (briefly), and other Washington insiders. At its heart, this is a show about a conspiracy that, drawing on its obvious 24 inspiration, reaches the highest echelons of government.
Unlike 24, however, The State Within relies not on action and suspense, it instead uses a well-crafted story and a coherent sense of character motivation to draw in the viewer. Of course it has a few great explosions, including an airplane crashing on the I-95 in the first episode, a few gunfights, and even the shocking and bloody execution of a prostitute. All good conspiracy stories should, after all, incorporate the use or threat of violence. Yet The State Within uses these devices judiciously and as a furtherance of the plot. It's also possible that the BBC just doesn't have the funds to stage dozens of military-style scraps in one program, but if that's the case I think the shoestring budgets are helping, not hindering the BBC.
24 seems to have stopped caring about details like story, character motivation, and frankly the eventual fatigue an audience experiences after watching the 97th torture scene, the 48th car chase, or the utterly predictable 123rd cliffhanger where Jack Bauer is on the verge of death. I watched 24 through the end of the 7th season, but I realized towards the end that I was watching it only because I felt invested, not because I was enjoying it anymore. Episodes were piling up in my Tivo unwatched, and it took me months to get through them all - forcing myself to dedicate an hour here and there to wade through the backlog. I think I watched the finale in September. Honestly, I got bored of the repetitive sequence of episodes: resolution of previous cliffhanger; clue revealed; frantic search; major action sequence; cliffhanger. When character motivation is sprinkled into the show, it often doesn't make sense or is so contrived as to be laughable. Further, when the underlying conspiracy of the current season is developed, the writers seem to be force-feeding it to the audience with no subtlety at all. That's probably why the reins of the conspiracy shift so often in a season of 24. They have to keep the suspense alive somehow, and the story is never complex enough to keep one thread going for long in a season. Thus, you end up with one villain after another, usually creeping your way up the hierarchy of the conspiracy until you reach some bigwig in [insert name of government or corporation here].
This is where the BBC gets it right. The BBC writers seem to understand that audience confusion during a suspenseful story is not a bad thing. Keep the audience guessing, and as long as the story flows well, the payoff is much better. I feel obligated to point out that the BBC is not invincible on this point. If you start watching another of the great BBC suspense dramas, MI-5, stop after the 3rd season (or series as the Brits would say). The 4th season of this great show jumped the 24 shark, sacrificing story for action and pounding music. Don't bother.
For those of you who prefer the intellectual treading of water that is 24, I don't judge. TV is escapism, after all, and if you prefer to check out while you veg out, then 24 serves that purpose well. If you want more crank in your melon like I do, then Netflix The State Within.
PS -
Erica Durance, I love you.
As a specific example, I recently watched the 2006 BBC series The State Within. A 7 episode mini, this series examines a potential terrorist plot within the United States, seen from the perspective of the British Ambassador to the US, admirably played by the British actor Jason Isaacs. The show takes place primarily in Washington, D.C. and involves eminent characters like the US Secretary of Defense, the Governor of Florida (briefly), and other Washington insiders. At its heart, this is a show about a conspiracy that, drawing on its obvious 24 inspiration, reaches the highest echelons of government.
Unlike 24, however, The State Within relies not on action and suspense, it instead uses a well-crafted story and a coherent sense of character motivation to draw in the viewer. Of course it has a few great explosions, including an airplane crashing on the I-95 in the first episode, a few gunfights, and even the shocking and bloody execution of a prostitute. All good conspiracy stories should, after all, incorporate the use or threat of violence. Yet The State Within uses these devices judiciously and as a furtherance of the plot. It's also possible that the BBC just doesn't have the funds to stage dozens of military-style scraps in one program, but if that's the case I think the shoestring budgets are helping, not hindering the BBC.
24 seems to have stopped caring about details like story, character motivation, and frankly the eventual fatigue an audience experiences after watching the 97th torture scene, the 48th car chase, or the utterly predictable 123rd cliffhanger where Jack Bauer is on the verge of death. I watched 24 through the end of the 7th season, but I realized towards the end that I was watching it only because I felt invested, not because I was enjoying it anymore. Episodes were piling up in my Tivo unwatched, and it took me months to get through them all - forcing myself to dedicate an hour here and there to wade through the backlog. I think I watched the finale in September. Honestly, I got bored of the repetitive sequence of episodes: resolution of previous cliffhanger; clue revealed; frantic search; major action sequence; cliffhanger. When character motivation is sprinkled into the show, it often doesn't make sense or is so contrived as to be laughable. Further, when the underlying conspiracy of the current season is developed, the writers seem to be force-feeding it to the audience with no subtlety at all. That's probably why the reins of the conspiracy shift so often in a season of 24. They have to keep the suspense alive somehow, and the story is never complex enough to keep one thread going for long in a season. Thus, you end up with one villain after another, usually creeping your way up the hierarchy of the conspiracy until you reach some bigwig in [insert name of government or corporation here].
This is where the BBC gets it right. The BBC writers seem to understand that audience confusion during a suspenseful story is not a bad thing. Keep the audience guessing, and as long as the story flows well, the payoff is much better. I feel obligated to point out that the BBC is not invincible on this point. If you start watching another of the great BBC suspense dramas, MI-5, stop after the 3rd season (or series as the Brits would say). The 4th season of this great show jumped the 24 shark, sacrificing story for action and pounding music. Don't bother.
For those of you who prefer the intellectual treading of water that is 24, I don't judge. TV is escapism, after all, and if you prefer to check out while you veg out, then 24 serves that purpose well. If you want more crank in your melon like I do, then Netflix The State Within.
PS -
Erica Durance, I love you.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
How "South Park" Remains Relevant by Not Being Relevant
I have often wondered what sort of ritual Trey Parker and Matt Stone go through to develop a South Park episode. I confess that I have envisioned them getting together with the South Park writing staff in front of a bank of LCD big-screen TVs, all set to news channels, smoking bowl after bowl of weed in a giant glass bong, and choosing current events to malign by whichever story gets the biggest laugh.
After watching this week's episode, "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs", however, I realize that there is likely no ritual at all. In this episode, the boys sit down to write the most offensive novel that has ever been written because, after being forced to read "The Catcher in the Rye" (recently available at their school after having been banned because of its foul language and vulgar themes), they realize that the world has a distorted view of what is really offensive. Trouble ensues when the boys' parents discover the novel and read it to the accompaniment of uncontrollable vomiting. The boys think they're in trouble so they tell everyone Butters wrote the book, only to discover that everyone considers it literary genius with timeless themes of conservative v. liberal/elites v. working classes/you pick the theme.
As with most of the South Park episodes, this one is funny. Also, to my surprise, I think Trey and Matt are trying to tell the viewers something: South Park has no theme; episodes are developed because they are funny, not because they're trying to make a statement.
Just like "Catcher in the Rye", South Park has its vocal critics who bemoan the vulgarity and casual violence, the lack of moral grounding (though I would argue Stan plays that role pretty well), and the usual litany of whiny fear-mongering. Matt and Trey have never really wasted time trying to defend the show against these self-hating haters. Yet, in "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs", I think they've taken a bold step and pointed the finger at their fans instead.
Most people watch South Park because it is funny. Some fans, however, take a high-brow approach to the show and try to point out how the show is culturally relevant ... how Trey and Matt are, in fact, brilliant social commentators. I have fallen into that group myself, and I think I (and the other elitist fans) have secretly been defending ourselves instead of the show. Maybe we were just embarrassed by our propensity to watch cartoon comedies at the age of 35. Well, here is our wake-up call. According to Trey and Matt (I think), we should be watching South Park because it is funny, not because it is socially relevant. Does this mean "Catcher in the Rye" was really just a boring story about a middle-class crybaby? I may have to reevaluate my 20s.
Message received, gentlemen!
P.S.
Erica Durance, I love you.
After watching this week's episode, "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs", however, I realize that there is likely no ritual at all. In this episode, the boys sit down to write the most offensive novel that has ever been written because, after being forced to read "The Catcher in the Rye" (recently available at their school after having been banned because of its foul language and vulgar themes), they realize that the world has a distorted view of what is really offensive. Trouble ensues when the boys' parents discover the novel and read it to the accompaniment of uncontrollable vomiting. The boys think they're in trouble so they tell everyone Butters wrote the book, only to discover that everyone considers it literary genius with timeless themes of conservative v. liberal/elites v. working classes/you pick the theme.
As with most of the South Park episodes, this one is funny. Also, to my surprise, I think Trey and Matt are trying to tell the viewers something: South Park has no theme; episodes are developed because they are funny, not because they're trying to make a statement.
Just like "Catcher in the Rye", South Park has its vocal critics who bemoan the vulgarity and casual violence, the lack of moral grounding (though I would argue Stan plays that role pretty well), and the usual litany of whiny fear-mongering. Matt and Trey have never really wasted time trying to defend the show against these self-hating haters. Yet, in "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs", I think they've taken a bold step and pointed the finger at their fans instead.
Most people watch South Park because it is funny. Some fans, however, take a high-brow approach to the show and try to point out how the show is culturally relevant ... how Trey and Matt are, in fact, brilliant social commentators. I have fallen into that group myself, and I think I (and the other elitist fans) have secretly been defending ourselves instead of the show. Maybe we were just embarrassed by our propensity to watch cartoon comedies at the age of 35. Well, here is our wake-up call. According to Trey and Matt (I think), we should be watching South Park because it is funny, not because it is socially relevant. Does this mean "Catcher in the Rye" was really just a boring story about a middle-class crybaby? I may have to reevaluate my 20s.
Message received, gentlemen!
P.S.
Erica Durance, I love you.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Why "The Mentalist' Is Going to Miss the Advertising Sweet Spot
It's not a genre program. The long-term story-arcs account for only 5% of the show. It's a crime drama. It completely ignores fundamental legal and forensic principles. But I still love The Mentalist. Is this hypocrisy from someone who lambastes all other styrofoam-peanut shows like Law & Order and Criminal Minds? Maybe, but I can live with it. Honestly, I'm not even sure what it is about The Mentalist that I love so much. Certainly Simon Baker has a lot to do with the show's unquantifiable "something good". Could be Amanda Righetti (drool). It can't be the murder-by-number scripts; there's nothing particularly shocking or original there. Regardless, I can take comfort from the fact that the show's mysterious appeal has drawn in millions apart from myself. It was the number 1 scripted show on television in 2008, and although The Good Wife seems to be the CBS powerhouse this season, The Mentalist has retained most of it's first season audience.
Unfortunately for CBS, there's one major setback: basketball. CBS has been losing to Fox this season in the 18-49 Nielsen category - the place where all advertisers want to camp out - and my theory is that basketball is the parasite that's stealing away CBS' new-found youth and vigor. Sound contradictory? Wait for it .....
I consider myself fairly representative of the mid-thirties, disposable income, educated guy who spends obscene amounts of money on electronics, cars, and household products (and beer). Folks like me tend to watch their favorite programs on a DVR, much to the chagrin of advertisers worldwide (though my friend in the advertising industry might say advertisers are well aware of this phenomenon and have clever strategies to slip in the consumerist mind-control nonetheless). I almost never watch live TV anymore, thanks to the convenience of my Tivo. When CBS schedules basketball before one of its prime time champions, however, my after-market Tivo can't keep up with the scheduling ambiguity and I miss half the program. Problem? Meh ... kind of. But considering how many programs are available for free on the network website the next day, it's not a huge hurdle. I don't mind streaming the last 30 minutes of a show that I missed the night before in exchange for a forced commercial or two. In fact, I consider it a fair trade-off. When I miss an episode of The Good Wife (yes, I watch it) because of basketball; or The Dollhouse because of bad antenna reception (don't ask...and, future blog post idea: "Stop Canceling Joss Whedon's Shows, Fox!!"), I can just pop over to CBS or Fox online and stream the episode.
The Mentalist, on the other hand, is not available online. Suddenly an inconvenience has become a problem, especially considering the fact that the show relies heavily on an ending twist that, while usually predictable, is part of the show's draw. I can certainly guess what happened to the biologist who "died" from exposure to a deadly pathogen in the episode "Code Red" (I'm pretty sure it was a scam she cooked up with her husband to make money), but I will never know because some team played some other team in a game that I was never tall enough to play.
Advice to CBS: you're doing a great job picking the right scripted programs. You're doing an even better job re-capturing the young audience. Don't piss into the wind by choosing not to stream episodes of The Mentalist. You won't preserve future revenue that way. Trust me, I have an MBA (almost). My guess is that Primrose Hill Productions (the makers of The Mentalist) has reserved the rights to reproduce the show in all formats other than broadcast, and is refusing to allow you to stream episodes. While I think I understand Primrose Hill's purpose here - to sell DVD's - cutting the audience off from half the show is not a smart way to go about it. The long green in DVD sales comes from 5 or more seasons and box-sets, not 2 or 3 seasons of a show that lost half its viewers because no one could ever see the end of an episode. CBS, you have the muscle to bully Primrose Hill into giving up the streaming rights. Throw them a bone, perhaps, limiting the streaming to the most recent episode until a new episode is aired. That will work for me. And the rest of the 18-49s.
P.S.
Erica Durance, I love you.
Unfortunately for CBS, there's one major setback: basketball. CBS has been losing to Fox this season in the 18-49 Nielsen category - the place where all advertisers want to camp out - and my theory is that basketball is the parasite that's stealing away CBS' new-found youth and vigor. Sound contradictory? Wait for it .....
I consider myself fairly representative of the mid-thirties, disposable income, educated guy who spends obscene amounts of money on electronics, cars, and household products (and beer). Folks like me tend to watch their favorite programs on a DVR, much to the chagrin of advertisers worldwide (though my friend in the advertising industry might say advertisers are well aware of this phenomenon and have clever strategies to slip in the consumerist mind-control nonetheless). I almost never watch live TV anymore, thanks to the convenience of my Tivo. When CBS schedules basketball before one of its prime time champions, however, my after-market Tivo can't keep up with the scheduling ambiguity and I miss half the program. Problem? Meh ... kind of. But considering how many programs are available for free on the network website the next day, it's not a huge hurdle. I don't mind streaming the last 30 minutes of a show that I missed the night before in exchange for a forced commercial or two. In fact, I consider it a fair trade-off. When I miss an episode of The Good Wife (yes, I watch it) because of basketball; or The Dollhouse because of bad antenna reception (don't ask...and, future blog post idea: "Stop Canceling Joss Whedon's Shows, Fox!!"), I can just pop over to CBS or Fox online and stream the episode.
The Mentalist, on the other hand, is not available online. Suddenly an inconvenience has become a problem, especially considering the fact that the show relies heavily on an ending twist that, while usually predictable, is part of the show's draw. I can certainly guess what happened to the biologist who "died" from exposure to a deadly pathogen in the episode "Code Red" (I'm pretty sure it was a scam she cooked up with her husband to make money), but I will never know because some team played some other team in a game that I was never tall enough to play.
Advice to CBS: you're doing a great job picking the right scripted programs. You're doing an even better job re-capturing the young audience. Don't piss into the wind by choosing not to stream episodes of The Mentalist. You won't preserve future revenue that way. Trust me, I have an MBA (almost). My guess is that Primrose Hill Productions (the makers of The Mentalist) has reserved the rights to reproduce the show in all formats other than broadcast, and is refusing to allow you to stream episodes. While I think I understand Primrose Hill's purpose here - to sell DVD's - cutting the audience off from half the show is not a smart way to go about it. The long green in DVD sales comes from 5 or more seasons and box-sets, not 2 or 3 seasons of a show that lost half its viewers because no one could ever see the end of an episode. CBS, you have the muscle to bully Primrose Hill into giving up the streaming rights. Throw them a bone, perhaps, limiting the streaming to the most recent episode until a new episode is aired. That will work for me. And the rest of the 18-49s.
P.S.
Erica Durance, I love you.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Why "Smallville" is the Show "Heroes" Should Have Been
I tried to love Heroes. I really, really did. When NBC put the full force of their marketing efforts behind a genre show, it gave me hope that we were turning a corner as a nation - maybe the empty-headed reality shows of prime time and the Harlequin Romance dramas like Grey's Anatomy and Ghost Whisperer (and no, a show starring Jennifer Love Hewitt as a corpse channeler is not a genre show) would finally wither in the awesome light of an honest, story-driven, comic-inspired epic like Heroes promised to be.
Despite some great moments - like the future Hiro, sporting an over-the-shoulder samurai sword, visiting Peter on a subway train to tell him he has a destiny as a hero, or the 3rd season game changer that has Peter, Mohinder, Matt, and Hiro making a pact to finally work together (supergroup? hells yeah!) - this NBC abortion continued to take one bad turn after another.
Whenever the series seemed to have a moment of clarity, a storyline that showed promise, or even a supercool visual sequence, the incoherent side plots, mashup editing, abandoned story arcs, poorly introduced additional characters, and unconvincing villains ruined it. I won't wax poetic about the terrible 4th season that I stopped watching after four episodes; I will simply say this about it: stupid, stupid, stupid. Even an excellent actor like Robert Knepper couldn't make this garbage watchable. Of course, NBC seems to have a talent for taking outstanding actors and casting them in crap shows (Ian McShane, anyone?).
Smallville, on the other hand, has only gotten better over time. When it started, Smallville was really just a villain-of-the-week show, a tween homage to X-Files. The writers and producers, however, made a critical choice with the show that keeps viewers like me coming back for more: "no tights, no flights." By putting Superman in a box that limited his bad-assedness, the show's creators made him more accessible, while staying true to the tragic boy scout that is really the soul of the character. Thus, Smallville shrewdly built an audience for 2 or 3 seasons while introducing more long-term story arcs in later episodes that tend to appeal more to the genre-watching elites.
Now, in seasons 7-9, Smallville has really found its superhero stride. You like supergroups? No problem; the show has seamlessly integrated the burgeoning Justice League, has shown us the seeds of the Legion of Doom, and has done it all while maintaining a core audience that doesn't give two figs about comic books. Are you a "shipper"? Can't get enough of the Lois and Clark sexual tension? Somehow, Smallville has done what no other Superman show has managed: they have kept the forlorn couple right on the edge of love for nearly 5 seasons without jumping the shark, Ross-and-Rachel-style.
And unlike Heroes, Smallville has done an excellent job of introducing new villains like Doomsday, fantastically characterized by Sam Witwer, and Linda Lake (Tori Spelling as a super villain? Believe it!). Even after losing longtime producers Miles Millar and Alfred Gough, the series has continued to satisfy. I know there are haters out there who think Smallville is a bastardization of the Superman mythos, but my response to that is: so what? It's entertaining television with consistently high-quality writing. Do you want more genre shows on television? If you do, stop bashing the longest running comic-inspired TV show of all time.
NBC: learn something from Smallville. It takes more than a cool concept to make great television. Hire good writers, people like Smallville's Brian Q. Miller; keep finance and accounting executives out of the creative house; and above all, have faith in your audience. If it's good, and it's genre, we'll watch it. Unless it's Heroes 2.
P.S.
Erica Durance, I love you.
Smallville, on the other hand, has only gotten better over time. When it started, Smallville was really just a villain-of-the-week show, a tween homage to X-Files. The writers and producers, however, made a critical choice with the show that keeps viewers like me coming back for more: "no tights, no flights." By putting Superman in a box that limited his bad-assedness, the show's creators made him more accessible, while staying true to the tragic boy scout that is really the soul of the character. Thus, Smallville shrewdly built an audience for 2 or 3 seasons while introducing more long-term story arcs in later episodes that tend to appeal more to the genre-watching elites.
Now, in seasons 7-9, Smallville has really found its superhero stride. You like supergroups? No problem; the show has seamlessly integrated the burgeoning Justice League, has shown us the seeds of the Legion of Doom, and has done it all while maintaining a core audience that doesn't give two figs about comic books. Are you a "shipper"? Can't get enough of the Lois and Clark sexual tension? Somehow, Smallville has done what no other Superman show has managed: they have kept the forlorn couple right on the edge of love for nearly 5 seasons without jumping the shark, Ross-and-Rachel-style.
And unlike Heroes, Smallville has done an excellent job of introducing new villains like Doomsday, fantastically characterized by Sam Witwer, and Linda Lake (Tori Spelling as a super villain? Believe it!). Even after losing longtime producers Miles Millar and Alfred Gough, the series has continued to satisfy. I know there are haters out there who think Smallville is a bastardization of the Superman mythos, but my response to that is: so what? It's entertaining television with consistently high-quality writing. Do you want more genre shows on television? If you do, stop bashing the longest running comic-inspired TV show of all time.
NBC: learn something from Smallville. It takes more than a cool concept to make great television. Hire good writers, people like Smallville's Brian Q. Miller; keep finance and accounting executives out of the creative house; and above all, have faith in your audience. If it's good, and it's genre, we'll watch it. Unless it's Heroes 2.
P.S.
Erica Durance, I love you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)